On the whole US military tactics are better than Al Qaeda tactics.
Two mentally disabled women were strapped with explosives Friday and sent into busy Baghdad markets, where they were blown up by remote control, a top Iraqi government official said.
The bombs killed at least 98 people and wounded more than 200 at two popular pet markets on the holiest day of the week for Muslims, authorities said
BRING THE NUANCE! IM READY FOR IT!
Those that are capable of summary judgments report higher rates of excellent mental health.
Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to rate their mental health as excellent, according to data from the last four November Gallup Health and Healthcare polls.
Is it possible that nuanced understanding comes from insecurity? Out of fear of being incorrect the nuanced thinker refrains from assertion until they are certain of not being incorrect. The more generalized thinker is less concerned with being incorrect and happily asserts irrespective of being correct.
One thing for sure is that democratic ideology emphasize non-judgment while conservative ideology emphasize it. Many that are democratic no doubt find it compelling to join a group that is more interested in understanding then judging. Disinclination from being judged indicates insecurity about that which you are to be judge on. Well then, is it any wonder that the party of judgment has a higher rate of self reported excellent mental health? They have the confidence to judge themselves as excellent.
Some have suggested that I favor banning same sex marriage. To clarify my position, unlike many of my readers, I emphatically agree with this statement:
On the whole, banning same sex marriage is bad.
As such I would oppose any kind of constitutional amendment that bans same sex marriage. (Please note the word ‘oppose’ which is in bold so as to insure the word is actually read.)
Given most of my readers do not like to make summary judgments I eagerly await their equivocations on banning same sex marriage. Or wait, maybe they can eagerly aver politically liberal summary judgments but demand nuance when it comes to politically conservative summary judgments. Oh man, I can’t wait to see how this one plays out.
What say you readers? Do you think on the whole banning same sex marriage is bad?
I should also note that as a libertarian, opposing this blatant discrimination is a no brainer. The only way you could possibly think I would support banning same sex marriage is if I’m a republican which I clearly am not. I have stated on countless occasions I’m a libertarian one that takes serious the need to defend liberal values. Banning same sex marriage is clearly a violation of the liberal value that people should be allowed to do as they please provided they do not explicitly harm others in the process.
or greater than US culture?
A court in the ultra-conservative kingdom of Saudi Arabia is punishing a female victim of gang rape with 200 lashes and six months in jail, a newspaper reported on Thursday.
The 19-year-old woman — whose six armed attackers have been sentenced to jail terms — was initially ordered to undergo 90 lashes for “being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape,” the Arab News reported.
But in a new verdict issued after Saudi Arabia’s Higher Judicial Council ordered a retrial, the court in the eastern town of Al-Qatif more than doubled the number of lashes to 200.
I wouldn’t want to make any summary judgments. Refrain from judging please. Incidentaly, anyone happen to know what supra-culture Saudi Arabia’s culture would fall into?
This quote reminds me of the countless arguments I dealt with when I would ask a ‘on the whole’ question.
Before anyone waxes stupid, please don’t tell me that all generalizations are invalid because not every member of the given group will conform to a generalization. Intelligent people understand that legitimate generalizations are statements about a group’s general characteristics, not individuals’ specific ones. For example, if I say that men are taller than women, I don’t mean that every man towers over every woman; nevertheless, it is an accurate relation of a general difference between the groups.
One can make generalizations with the implied assumption that not all applicable entities necessarily fall into that generalization. It nice to see others struggling to make such an elementary point to those on the left.
The bulk of the post is looking at police profiling. Clearly this is an example of using summary judgment. The poster makes this astute observation.
Modern dogma holds that diversity is one of the greatest qualities a society can enjoy, that it bestows many advantages. But what does this imply? Well, by definition “diversity” refers to differences among groups. Now, not only is it illogical to assume that every one of these differences will be flattering, the supposition that diversity is beneficial implies otherwise. After all, if diversity is beneficial, it is only because certain groups bring qualities or strengths to the table that others do not. And, if a given group possesses a certain unique strength, then other groups are wanting in that area relative to it.
Any which way you care to slice it, this is a corollary of diversity dogma.
So, ironically, despite the fact that the diversity dogmatists would eschew stereotyping, a version of it imbues their ideology. So it’s not that they don’t have biases relating to generalizations, only that their understanding of group differences is clumsy and primitive, sort of like Archie Bunker but with advanced degrees, the illusion of intellectualism and the inability to be honest with themselves and others. So let’s be honest now.
Given some of my readers absolute reluctance to give any kind of summary judgment, boose asks a great question:
on the whole, is killing innocent people bad?
I can already hear Dan’s response:
(+) Innocent people take up resources that can harm the planet.
(-) Innocent people really have done nothing to justify being killed.
(+) I don’t like people.
Or Darwin’s response:
The question of whether its bad to kill innocent people is unsatisfactory. Therefore I’m not going to answer other than to say I’m not an expert in the empirical effects of killing innocent people.
Jamie’s response:
Boose you are a simple minded, bigot and a racist.
And how can i forget Bettina? Her response:
Isn’t asking this question again redundant? Steve was clearly proven wrong about this question and he needs to post about the things I find interesting.
By the way my response is yes. On the whole, killing innocent people is bad.
On the whole, is smoking bad?
On the whole, would you say one company doing a hostile take over of another company simply to liquidate its assets is a bad thing?
